§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD ELTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the fact that a great majority of the electorate, reported by a national opinion poll on April 25 to amount to 93 per cent., desires a drastic reduction on further immigration into this country has caused them to reconsider their present policy in this respect; and, if not, what they consider to be the relevance of the wishes of the electorate in contemporary democracy.]
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the public opinion poll to which the noble Lord refers does not reflect an awareness that immigration is now strictly controlled, and that, apart from dependants, the entry of new immigrants is related to the economic and social needs of the country.
§ LORD ELTONMy Lords, I must thank the noble Lord for that Answer, in spite of the fact that I think it turns a blind eye on certain practical possibilities. May I ask him whether he really thinks that if we had a Government capable of resolute and competent planning, and responsive to the wishes of the electorate, it would nevertheless still be impossible for us to run our buses and railways and hotels, as in many other countries they mysteriously manage to do, without a continuous stream of immigrants to help? Secondly, does he realise that the all too evident and, as I think, most dangerous decline in the respect of the public for politicians and Parliament must be due largely to the simple fact that the Government have so often done things which the public does not want, and not done things which it does want? Finally, can the noble Lord think of any moment in British history in which one can suppose that more than 90 per cent. of the electorate on a major issue wanted one policy and believed it to be practicable, while the Government persisted in another?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, to answer the noble Lord's last question 207 first, I think most noble Lords would agree that if the question to the readers of the newspaper to which he referred had asked, "Should aliens be granted more favourable conditions regarding entry of their dependants than British citizens", almost assuredly 93 per cent. of them would have said "No".
On the noble Lord's first point, whether we have a Government capable of carrying out plans, my reply is, certainly we have. However, this Government believe that the interests of contemporary democracy are best served by the Acts passed by a democratically elected Parliament and not by Gallup Poll. We must face, and I hope the noble Lord will face, this situation: that those who say we should stop immigration immediately are saying at the same time that we should deny ourselves of the small but valuable intake, fewer than 5,000 people, of people we need, who have special skills, and secondly that we should refuse entry to the wives and dependent children of immigrants now here who have a statutory right to come to this country. With regard to the last point, certainly all three political Parties and all leaders of responsible opinion in this country say that we should not deny that right.
§ LORD BLYTONIs my noble friend aware that the great majority of coloured people in the hospitals and the railways were brought here in the 13 years of the previous Administration? And is he further aware that many others are grateful to the black doctors and the black nurses who administer to our sick needs when we need help? May I urge the Government to keep a balanced view of this problem and not to be led by the hysteria that occurred after a certain Conservative speech and was the cause of the figures that were given in the Gallup Poll.
§ LORD STONHAMI can certainly assure my noble friend that we shall not be diverted from our purpose by the hysteria to which he referred. It is also true, as my noble friend said, that many of the dependants, perhaps the majority of them, are coming in now as a result of entries even before 1962. But that is not to lay any blame whatsoever on the Party opposite who were then in office. I hope we might begin to try to get this 208 question out of Party political controversy and concentrate on the two issues which I have just put before your Lordships. The first is, are we to go back on our statutory word, approved by all Parties in this Parliament, and deny entry to wives and children of men who came over here on the understanding that they could later bring their families with them? When that question is faced, then we are really facing the question of stopping all immigration, and I do not think any right-minded person in this country would say that we must stop it entirely.
§ LORD ELTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord note that the question was not the stopping of immigration but reducing it, and it is perfectly possible to reduce immigration by reducing voucher holders, without doing anything to dependants.
§ LORD STONHAMI am answering the noble Lord's original Question, which referred to a poll conducted by a newspaper which gave a 93 per cent. vote in favour of ending immigration.
§ LORD ELTONNo, my Lords.
§ LORD STONHAMWe are constantly watching this question of voucher holders, and at present no voucher is granted unless the person concerned, by reason of his or her skill, is badly needed in this country.
§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNORMy Lords, almost all of us want to keep a balanced view on this question, but is the Minister of State aware that there may be a via media between complete stoppage of all immigration, which I think is impossible, and leaving things exactly as they are now? Is the noble Lord aware that, considering the amount of unemployment in this country, some of us are doubtful whether we still need to issue as many as 5,000 vouchers a year? Is he further aware that many others are extremely doubtful whether we are right to continue to allow 14 and 15-year-old dependants to come into this country, bearing in mind that they will never pass through a British education and will be coming straight away as members of the working population?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the last point raised by the noble Lord is one he raised, I think, last week, and is a point of importance. As I am sure he is aware, we are keeping matters of this kind 209 under constant consideration, and it is only quite recently, in the 1968 Act, that we made a number of further limitations on entry, bringing the minimum age of elderly dependants up to 65, allowing children to come in only if both parents, or the surviving parent, were here, and strictly limiting the discretion for the entry of dependants under 16. This is having a substantial effect and, as I told him last week, we certainly have these matters, including the point he last made, continuously under review.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, is the Minister of State aware that the logic of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that the Government have been engaged in something rather disgraceful in flying in the face of 93 per cent. of the population's wishes because they think it is right, might be a policy that could have been followed with advantage by previous Administrations if they, too, had had the guts to do what they believed right, regardless of political considerations? Is he aware that if they had done that, many of the difficulties which now face this country would now have been avoided?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am aware of those considerations, but the only thing that can help us in our situation now is knowledge and understanding, and not slogans which are not backed by knowledge. The important thing is for us to agree, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, agreed, that to stop immigration is a virtual impossibility, and we must honour our moral and statutory obligations.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that as many people are emigrating from this country as are coming to this country; that any reduction of immigration to this country would affect people from Australia and from Canada as well as the immigrants from our ex-colonial territories, and whether the Government will in human terms maintain the civilised concept that, whatever our race or colour may be, we all belong to the human family?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, it is true that all immigration restrictions apply irrespective of the country of origin. It is also true that we have to try to 210 relate our capacity to absorb immigrants to our capacity to house them and to provide jobs, schools and so on. This is the great difficulty which we are trying to resolve.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, are the Government aware that it is possible to question their policy on immigration without being hysterical? If they want to get a maximum of assent among the population, is it not rather a pity to express even tentative agreement with those who describe those who differ from them on immigration as "hysterical"?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, of course it is possible to question the Government's policy without hysteria, and noble Lords in this House do just that. Unfortunately, public comment to which so much attention has been drawn recently is almost entirely based on hysteria.
§ LORD RHODESMy Lords, did I gather from the reply given by the Minister in regard to the importance of the economic factors that if productivity increased in this country to such an extent that we should not need the immigration he would prevent it?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am sorry, but something occurred which prevented my hearing the noble friend's question.
§ LORD RHODESMy Lords, do I gather from the Minister's previous answer that the factors relating to economic and social matters have a bearing on the action of the Government in their attitude towards immigration? If it is our hope that productivity will increase to such an extent that we do not need the immigrants, is he then prepared to take action?—because that is what he suggests.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the volume of immigration is governed through the voucher scheme by economic considerations. If the economic climate changed, it might involve a chance in the total number of vouchers issued, but I cannot at present foreshadow such a change.
§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURYMy Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what has happened in regard to the inquiry into allegations of a good deal of corruption at Heathrow, in which 211 one officer was suspended in connection with immigration? Could he tell us how far this inquiry has got and when we shall be told of the results?
§ THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON)My Lords, I think that we have gone far enough on this Question. This last matter really is another question, and I hope that the House will agree to move on to the next business.